Forum Moderators: open
A court in Sweden has jailed four men behind The Pirate Bay (TPB), the world's most high-profile file-sharing website, in a landmark case.Frederik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Carl Lundstrom and Peter Sunde were found guilty of breaking copyright law and were sentenced to a year in jail.
They were also ordered to pay 30m kronor (£2.4m) in damages.
In a Twitter posting, Mr Sunde said: "Nothing will happen to TPB, this is just theatre for the media."
Pirate Bay doesn't host any of the content. They are just a file sharing company.
All they did IMHO was point to where you could find the torrent files (that in turn can be fed to fetch the file off of a P2P network.
It would be similar to a gun maker calling his company "Wife Stopper"
To get to the gun analogy: it's more like they were the yellow pages having a category "wife stopper" where gun shops are listed who then do what they do.
The name of the site gives a 100% clue to the intent of the site.
I can't help thinking of an old country song: "I Fought the Law, and the Law Won."
It would be similar to a gun maker calling his company "Wife Stopper" and trying to claim innocence when their weapons were "the weapon of choice" used to stop wives :)
If you think that a gun maker should be responsible for murder if their gun name is "Wife Stopper", then we have a very different concept of freedom and the role of government.
To get to the gun analogy: it's more like they were the yellow pages having a category "wife stopper" where gun shops are listed who then do what they do.
Thank you!
Funny how no one that is arguing in favor of the resolution, answered my question of whether they ever recorded a song off the radio as a kid. Or whether if they feel cassettes should have been illegal, after all, most people used them to infringe copyright.
I love my country because it WAS known as the land of the free. Sad to see how big money has convinced everyone that security should be valued over freedom.
In any event, out of respect for the Foo Charter let's leave God and country out of the arguments please.
What irritates me the most with the copyright debate is not the occasional act of copyright infringement for personal use, but the pseudo-idealogical intellectual back-flips used to attempt to justify the act. My personal acts of "piracy" had nothing whatsoever to do with an expression of my personal freedom, they were because I wanted something for free.
I can't help thinking of an old country song: "I Fought the Law, and the Law Won."
And somebody once said.. "The law is an ass". I don't think they've won yet, not over until a large portion of the population have done some time.
As I suggested earlier there are changes that need to be made in (big company) marketing and distribution---the income generating side---, but there is no need to change current COPYRIGHT, or even the concept of copyright.
but there is no need to change current COPYRIGHT
BTW - What Pirate Bay was doing - if I understand the facts correctly - is called "contributory infringement" - it's sort of the copyright and patent law equivalent to criminal law's "aiding and abetting".
Sad to see how big money has convinced everyone that security should be valued over freedom.
OK, I earn based on security of my content, not it's "freedom", it never gets old going round and round with scrapers about copyright.
Then my vote might cancel yours as I have read the Constitution: Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 and firmly believe in a constitutionally granted right to copyright. :)
The Berne Convention is similarly worded, and the US is a signatory of same (which during Clinton's presidency introduced the EXTENSIVE protections after the author/creator's lifetime). The original US copyright act was 28 years after author's life renewable for an additional term (one time). Presently that term is 75 years after demise which pretty much wipes out the concept of Public Domain DURING OUR LIFETIMES. That change to the original US copyright act does NOT meet with my approval. Should any lawmaker wish to submit a bill to REVERT to the original act then my support can be counted upon.
PirateBay was "aiding and abetting" and fully participatory in "contributory infringement". Stated in obverse THEY DID NOT CREATE ANY OF THE CONTENT which they knowingly passed through their systems. It is the KNOWINGLY part that needs to be addressed, and has been addressed via conviction, imprisonment, and fines.
Suggest this conversation is going nowhere.
as far as breaking the law as a pirate: I think everybody knows that copyright infringement is illegal. that's the law-side. but many people don't make that clear distinction when it comes to the moral side. when some people break the law, you can fairly say that those people are wrong. when a certain law is broken by a big part of society, the law seems to be wrong. that's how laws work, they're made and they adapt to reality. they're slow in their adaption, and the need to adapt is usually indicated by alot of people breaking the law.
when a certain law is broken by a big part of society, the law seems to be wrong
Really?
So if everyone ran around murdering each other then the law is wrong?
Lots of people shoplift, many sell their stolen loot on eBay even, so shoplifting shouldn't be against the law?
Run for office, fix it if you feel strongly about it.
Otherwise, trying to make a moral justification for it because 'everyone does it' simply doesn't fly.
Everyone used to smoke indoors until is was discovered smoke was causing cancer, just because everyone did it...
Everyone used to drink and drive, just because everyone did it...
The logic simply doesn't fly and don't bother saying the analogy doesn't fit because one is intellectual property, the other isn't, a law is a law is a law.
It's up to each individual to decide if his moral character allows him/her to be a scofflaw, but once you cross that line a scofflaw is a scofflaw regardless of the severity of the law being scoffed.
[edited by: incrediBILL at 8:39 am (utc) on April 20, 2009]
yes. because laws are for the people by the people. but not everybody is murdering each other, so obviously, most people still think murder is wrong. that's why the law is just fine.
think about prohibition for a friendly example: the law says you may not pour liquor into your body. the people say: but I want to, so I'll break the law. the law adapts.
>Otherwise, trying to make a moral justification for it
>because 'everyone does it' simply doesn't fly.
that's not my point at all. nothing is okay just because everyone does it. but if everyone is doing something, and that includes all the sane, friendly, honest people that live in this world, it doesn't seem to be that clearly wrong, does it? Since that big group of people really is pretty sane and aren't some wild anarchists, you don't see that wild change in laws. And you see some laws being created because alot of people seem to want them to be, smoking indoors is a great example for that. it's not the health issue that made the law, but the fact that many, many people cared for the health issue.
>It's up to each individual to decide if his moral
>character allows him/her to be a scofflaw, but once you
>cross that line a scofflaw is a scofflaw regardless of the
>severity of the law being scoffed.
it once was illegal to hide a runaway slave, and slavery was perfectly legal by law. so it's fine if it's printed on official paper?
The touchie-feelie gimme crowd just don't get it. Creators of what the touchie-feelie crowd crave do. And if the creators don't get feedback tangible (ie. income) there is no incentive to create. Guess who loses...
It is because of THIS MISCONCEPTION of how copyright works by the gimme crowd, not just in the US but in every country, that I support the media market clueless RIAA and their EU counterparts. Why? I want my website to be MINE MINE MINE, unique and recognized and PROTECTED from scammers, scrapers and idiots too stupid to make up their own content.
You can't win a copyright argument with the gimme crowd...they want it. Gimme, gimme, gimme!
But you can, because of the gimme crowd, see the future that ALL OF US will PAY for their crimes by the imposition of government license fees, taxes, add-ons etc etc etc JUST FOR ACCESS the same way that Clubs, Concerts (ticket surcharges), Radio and TV Stations (license to broadcast) pay same for providing services. Mark my words, this will come to pass IF the majors can't find a way to truly market their wares over the internet.
Socialism and anarchy only go so far...
That means throughout the entire period of British industrial dominance the US was not only protecting their domestic market with import tariffs on British manufactured products, but actually pirated British inventions for their own use.
Concentrate on the PROBLEM of how to monetize the internet and offer SOLUTIONS.
Else we get DRACONIAN laws which nobody can work with.
Narrative:
Lots of people broke the law, the law changed
Cause:
Society as a whole decided the particular law was not effective to implement their collective will. The law was either repealed (prohibition) or amended.
-------------------------
As I understand it, laws serve 2 main purposes.
1) To act as a formal structure to enforce the morality of the enacting society
2) To regulate transactions (especially business transactions) between legal entities
Copyright falls firmly into the second category, and trying to overthrow it based on any reasoning from the first category is a category error [en.wikipedia.org].
Its a bit like saying
"I made this business contract, but to meet it's terms will cause redundancies. Ensuring employment is more 'ethical' than fulfilling my contractual obligations. It is therefore acceptable to break contract"
Regulated business is the basis of wealth creation. Copyright is an important part of that- it means there is VALUE in creating WORTH.
There seems to be two parallel arguments here- one saying copyright means filesharing is bad. The other is that music companies abuse copyright to make excessive profit.
Both are (arguably) true. However, that doesn't mean you can steal.
Maybe if you boycotte the music industry, that excessive profit making may change. But you can't have your cake and eat it. By all means withold your cash- but you must then forgo the goods. You are NOT entitled to the music just because you disagree with the vendor.
By way of example; your local cinema charges too much. Does that mean you can sneak in for free, or just that CHOOSE not to go at all?
But you can, because of the gimme crowd, see the future that ALL OF US will PAY for their crimes by the imposition of government license fees, taxes, add-ons etc etc etc JUST FOR ACCESS the same way that Clubs, Concerts (ticket surcharges), Radio and TV Stations (license to broadcast) pay same for providing services. Mark my words, this will come to pass IF the majors can't find a way to truly market their wares over the internet.
You know I think we might have some common ground there, that would be a truly awful system.
I think it will probably come to pass if we can't find a better way to distribute movies and music online. Which is why, given that they have had more than 10 years to sort it out and they have failed miserably, we need to take that portion of copyright (the right not to distribute) away from the holders of rights on certain specific types of work.
If you give people acceptable alternatives to illegal downloads and most still don't take them.. well maybe I'll start to agree with some people here, but until it's been tried I don't see how we can assume that they won't.
>Regulated business is the basis of wealth creation. >Copyright is an important part of that- it means there is
>VALUE in creating WORTH.
it is, but there's also a reason why copyright is not granted "for all of eternity" - all I'm arguing is that maybe the time span should be reconsidered, given that the technological reality has changed. And while the idea is to give stability and reliability to create wealth, at some point it shifts, from societys point of view, to actively hindering the creation of wealth. I've always understood that's why patents and copyrights aren't given for eternity. You're the creator, you should be able to milk it and earn some money. But you cannot sit there and say "I don't like people. Nobody should ever be allowed to use my great invention" for all times.
I'm not into the whole p2p-thing that much, and I am boycotting the music industry (the major one, that is, I still buy stuff from independent artists and very few big ones ... because, honestly, who want's to listen to the major labels and their made-up-artists they pump out).
take that portion of copyright (the right not to distribute) away from the holders of rights on certain specific types of work.
I'm taking this quote in the manner I think you meant (not the negative as it reads). Else it reads don't distribute...
Creators (and their distribution partners) have the right to distribute. They should receive compensation for making that effort. I believe we are agreed in that regard.
The QUESTIONS which result are:
1. How much?
2. Now?
3. Legality?
One and Two are what the gimme's OR consumers are concerned with. Three is the distro method. Get all those ducks in a row and the CREATOR is happy. More Creators will opt in which means more PRODUCT for the masses.
WE DO HAVE A FAILURE in the distro market due to outmoded biz plans the media makers lean on... I freely grant that... but I do not agree with infringement, copying, or piracy.
One fellow earlier mentioned he recorded radio on his cassette... in the US that is okay for private consumption as a delayed broadcast...and he can keep it to listen to later AS LONG AS HE MAKES NO COPIES AND GIVES IT TO ANOTHER. That becomes distribution (ala P2P) and is a no no. Deserves to be prosecuted.
Though we live in fast times we should not lose our traditions of law and order. Illegal downloads are just that, there is no excuse. What is needed is a method of legal downloads, which will require some oldtimers to get on the ball (newspapers, record companies, movie studios, software companies...anything that can be delivered digitally).
These guys remain strong and have the lobby/ear of governments around the world. They screwed the public via radio, tv, and movie theaters years back...think they can do it again via the Internet. And force ISPs (your access) to collect a fee (they will pass on to you in your monthly bill) if folks do not get involved.
That's the part I'm unhappy with, the future...not this puissant conviction of some incorrigible fanbois shouting they have tech and MGM doesn't.
What happened to PirateBay is just the first (and loudest) salvo of the OLD CREW working their tried and true magic into the New Age of the Internet. THAT kind of enforced license fees/surcharges taxes, add-ons added to the consumer just to play is not my vision of the Internet.
I think it will probably come to pass if we can't find a better way to distribute movies and music online. Which is why, given that they have had more than 10 years to sort it out and they have failed miserably, we need to take that portion of copyright (the right not to distribute) away from the holders of rights on certain specific types of work.
In other words, the only problem anyone has with getting access to created works is that the current methods require the consumer to pay. All the rest of this is just a smoke screen for people looking to steal content and use if for free.
More complete nonsense from these people. Pirate bay gets nailed, and up springs people complaining about orhpaned works. Like pirate bay was some sort of cultural center for orhpaned works. :eye roll:. I've never been there,but I'd lay dollars to doughnuts that it's nothing other than a music and movie sharing site used by thiefs happy to steal work they should be paying for.
You don't have the right to download the latest top 40 song for free, sorry.
Group 1) wanted it for free, and even if someone had been on their door step with a copy for them, which they would only have had to pay 10p for, they would still have wanted the free one.
Group 2) would happily have paid, would have loved the quicker download time, for things to not get stuck at 99% for 3 months because the seed had gone offline, but didn't have that option, or the media wasn't made available to them. For instance american shows that never air on UK television (or air 12 months later) missed tv content that was not being released to DVD and not being repeated. Cult films, no longer being re-produced and not findable second hand.
While none of these reasons justifies the fact that it was theft and copyright infringement, group 2 highlights that part of the reasons copyright is so prevalent is partly due to the lack of development and marketing on the part of the media companies.
The BBC now provides all content for 7 days after it has aired, I no longer need to try and "get hold" of a copy of any missed programs. I would happily pay a monthly fee to a similar service that would allow me to watch content from multiple channels in a similar manner (this was in development in the uk but was turned down by the competition authority just as an aside), I would pay a second monthly fee for a similar service for american programming.
I would pay a licensing fee to media publishers to have access to a repository of information such as TPB but no such thing is available.
As far as I am concerned, the issue TPB raises is not one of copyright (I have no issues with the copyright laws just as they are and try to stay within them) but one of customer demand and the ineffectiveness with which these companies have met it.
Group one will always find a way round paying, you keep chasing and they will keep finding another back door; if you really want to make it taboo again though, you have to cater for group 2.
In other words, the only problem anyone has with getting access to created works is that the current methods require the consumer to pay. All the rest of this is just a smoke screen for people looking to steal content and use if for free.
Believe whatever you want. There are plenty of people like me [slate.com] who are living in 2009 with high speed internet access, earning enough money that a few quid on a movie is irrelevant, who are in fact quite willing to pay MORE for a decent service. You can tell me to sod off back to the '80s all you like but I'm not going to do it.
The excuses people will give for taking your work without paying for it never ends.
All you're saying is that it's more convenient for you to steal the content than pay for it.
I don't think that's entirely fair. It's not as simple as steal it or pay for it. People put an internal value on convenience, if they have to pay and are inconvenienced, they are paying more then if they pay the same amount and it is convenient. I think when you factor this in the cost of some of the traditional ways of getting media becomes prohibitive. while this doesn't kjustify the theft, it does explain why, if they charged the same amount and made it convenient for people to buy, the perceived cost would be reduced, taking away the incentive for people to steal it.
You can also view it in the context of how convenient it is to take, many people (more then you would ever think) would take a diamond out of a display cabinet at a jewellers if the were confident that they wouldn't get caught and it was easy. Far fewer would do the same if they were confident that they wouldn't get caught but it was difficult.
This is not to excuse the fact that people do it, more to point out that there is a lot more large media providers could be doing to reduce this kind of theft, and increase their sales revenue, simply by acknowledging human behaviour. And yes everyone can say that they shouldn't have to, but I'm pretty sure we all have car alarms and immobilisers for just that reason.
maybe you should go there (and to all the others) before you judge. maybe read something about it. maybe even from an artist - Trent Reznor: OiNK Was Better Than ITunes
I'll admit I had an account there and frequented it quite often. At the end of the day, what made OiNK a great place was that it was like the world's greatest record store. Pretty much anything you could ever imagine, it was there, and it was there in the format you wanted. If OiNK cost anything, I would certainly have paid, but there isn't the equivalent of that in the retail space right now. iTunes kind of feels like Sam Goody to me. I don't feel cool when I go there. I'm tired of seeing John Mayer's face pop up. I feel like I'm being hustled when I visit there, and I don't think their product is that great. DRM, low bit rate, etc.
and btw, I don't know about other video-on-demand-services besides the one I've got from my provider ... and they've got a few thousand movies, most of them bad. big hollywood productions pop up 2 years after cinema release, small indie-productions don't show up at all. iTunes is on the right track in having some non-major acts and I use it occasionally, but still, they lack alot of what I'd want.
As a UK resident, I get quite annoyed when anyone but Sky buys the rights to US shows. Sky show within a week of US airing, whereas everyone else pays the cheap fee for international syndication, and don't air until the whole series is finished.
I think I might be breaking copyright law. In fact, I'm pretty sure I am. I use a proxy to view online shows on US websites, breaching teritorial distribution rights. Am I as bad as a file-sharer?
BTW, have a look at a file-share site for The Colbert Report and The Daily Show. Both available for free from the channel's website, both stolen and republished by tens of thousands of downloaders. Why?
I thought about the same thing lately. I came up with either they hate streaming or flash, they want to watch it on their tv that doesn't support flash videos, want to enjoy the automatic RSS downloads, or they do it "just to break the law". Like a friend of mine always had Hitler's "Mein Kampf" in his book collection. Didn't care for it, didn't even read it, but since german authorities forbid you from importing / and or selling it, he had, just to make a statement (a private one, though, you're not free to do that in public without ramifications over here).
BTW, have a look at a file-share site for The Colbert Report and The Daily Show. Both available for free from the channel's website, both stolen and republished by tens of thousands of downloaders. Why?
Pretty sure you can't watch full episodes of The Daily Show from the UK - or at least I get an apology and a plea not to send the Red Coats after them when I try :)
I've downloaded so much copyrighted stuff over my lifetime I've completely lost track of all of it. And as time has passed, it only has gotten easier. As much as I enjoy these sites and use them frequently, they really should be shut down.
